I hope you realize that you are the only one that finds that funny. It's quite telling, really. You're openly rooting for the weaker candidate. Your support of Obama is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I hope you realize that you are the only one that finds that funny. It's quite telling, really. You're openly rooting for the weaker candidate. Your support of Obama is an exercise in cognitive dissonance.

Like you are fucking objective in the least about Obama.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone that is "objective" about politics. However, my opposition to Obama is based on his policies, actions and statements. Nothing more. I certainly don't oppose him just because he's a Democrat, or due to race or some other factor.

jimmac, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any reason and hasn't since day 1. He told me in 2008 that he liked Hillary, but preferred Obama. When asked why, he gave a snarky response about Obama "implementing programs, you know, for the poor and things." And now? And now? His only reason for supporting him is that "the GOP candidates are a joke."

Objective, indeed.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You'll be hard pressed to find anyone that is "objective" about politics. However, my opposition to Obama is based on his policies, actions and statements. Nothing more. I certainly don't oppose him just because he's a Democrat, or due to race or some other factor.

jimmac, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any reason and hasn't since day 1. He told me in 2008 that he liked Hillary, but preferred Obama. When asked why, he gave a snarky response about Obama "implementing programs, you know, for the poor and things." And now? And now? His only reason for supporting him is that "the GOP candidates are a joke."

Objective, indeed.

I'll put it to you. Name a Democrat in a major race that you've voted for in the last 30 years. If it helps I voted for the Libertarian candidate Roger Macbride in 1976 ( incidently the year I met my wife she was 17 and I was 23 ). Republicans haven't thrilled me for a long time.

I'll put it to you. Name a Democrat in a major race that you've voted for in the last 30 years. If it helps I voted for the Libertarian candidate Roger Macbride in 1976 ( incidently the year I met my wife she was 17 and I was 23 ). Republicans haven't thrilled me for a long time.

I read the article. It's extremely biased, especially given the fact that such as article would NEVER be written about Obama. It's biases are multiple, from being anti-Mormon to expressing shock (SHOCK!) that Romney has compassion and empathy. Add to that the focus on Romney campaigning hard for several years and building an organization that rivals can only "dream of"---is that bad? Isn't that the commitment it takes to win the job?

Beyond all the bias, I fundamentally disagree with the article's final premise: That this campaign will bloody the nominee (particularly Romney) and do Obama's work for him. I think it's just the opposite. The media coverage of Romney's negatives (Romneycare, Bain, wealth, changing positions) has been ubiquitous and will, I think, end up inoculating him against Democratic attacks. This has already started happening during this campaign. Attacks on Romney for his healthcare bill or his wealth have clearly fallen flat. It was only when Romney himself wasn't aggressive enough that he suffered.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

I read the article. It's extremely biased, especially given the fact that such as article would NEVER be written about Obama. It's biases are multiple, from being anti-Mormon to expressing shock (SHOCK!) that Romney has compassion and empathy. Add to that the focus on Romney campaigning hard for several years and building an organization that rivals can only "dream of"---is that bad? Isn't that the commitment it takes to win the job?

Beyond all the bias, I fundamentally disagree with the article's final premise: That this campaign will bloody the nominee (particularly Romney) and do Obama's work for him. I think it's just the opposite. The media coverage of Romney's negatives (Romneycare, Bain, wealth, changing positions) has been ubiquitous and will, I think, end up inoculating him against Democratic attacks. This has already started happening during this campaign. Attacks on Romney for his healthcare bill or his wealth have clearly fallen flat. It was only when Romney himself wasn't aggressive enough that he suffered.

Yea I agree. For those who remember the worst attacks against Obama came from the Clinton campaign. Republicans were later blamed for them. In the end it got a skeletons out of the closet early made them yesterday's news by the time the general election came around.

I read the article. It's extremely biased, especially given the fact that such as article would NEVER be written about Obama. It's biases are multiple, from being anti-Mormon to expressing shock (SHOCK!) that Romney has compassion and empathy. Add to that the focus on Romney campaigning hard for several years and building an organization that rivals can only "dream of"---is that bad? Isn't that the commitment it takes to win the job?

Beyond all the bias, I fundamentally disagree with the article's final premise: That this campaign will bloody the nominee (particularly Romney) and do Obama's work for him. I think it's just the opposite. The media coverage of Romney's negatives (Romneycare, Bain, wealth, changing positions) has been ubiquitous and will, I think, end up inoculating him against Democratic attacks. This has already started happening during this campaign. Attacks on Romney for his healthcare bill or his wealth have clearly fallen flat. It was only when Romney himself wasn't aggressive enough that he suffered.

I agree with this completely. No matter who the nominee happens to be, some time passing and the fact that things have gotten out there seems to always change the impact. No one is going to be pressing Romney on his tax returns in October.

Well it looks like Mitt will get the nomination. But I don't think it's certain he'll beat Obama, it will be close.

I think he should run a negative campaign, focussing on Obama's domestic failings. Obama has had some foreign policy successes, such as catching Bin Laden, so don't focus on that.

Well he certainly be ready for a dirty, negative, bruising street fight...because that's what Obama will be bringing. Not directly from Obama's mouth of course...but by proxy. It will be a street fight for sure and Team Obama should be expected to fight dirty. If the Republican opponent is unprepared for that, he will certainly lose.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that Mitt can't win against Obama without a good number of Ron Paul's supporters, most of whom see no difference between Romney and Obama on some very important issues like foreign policy and civil liberties (NDAA anyone?).

Unless Romney can flip-flop enough on some of those important issues to attract the Ron Paul Republicans, Obama is a 2 term president. But I doubt most Ron Paul supporters would be so fickle and gullible.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that Mitt can't win against Obama without a good number of Ron Paul's supporters, most of whom see no difference between Romney and Obama on some very important issues like foreign policy and civil liberties (NDAA anyone?).

Unless Romney can flip-flop enough on some of those important issues to attract the Ron Paul Republicans, Obama is a 2 term president. But I doubt most Ron Paul supporters would be so fickle and gullible.

Obama is probably a 2-termer anyway. And that might not be all that bad save for having to listen to him for the next 4 years. Why not bad? Well, the best thing for the country would be divided government here. Give the R's control of House and Senate with not quite veto-proof majority and let Obama continue to play golf and fly around on his luxury jet and pretend to represent the "common people." Let them all fight with one another for 4 years. It might be that nothing gets repealed (bad) but it might also mean that nothing new gets enacted (mostly good).

Obama is probably a 2-termer anyway. And that might not be all that bad save for having to listen to him for the next 4 years. Why not bad? Well, the best thing for the country would be divided government here. Give the R's control of House and Senate with not quite veto-proof majority and let Obama continue to play golf and fly around on his luxury jet and pretend to represent the "common people." Let them all fight with one another for 4 years. It might be that nothing gets repealed (bad) but it might also mean that nothing new gets enacted (mostly good).

I hate to say I agree with you, because I don't want to see us continue to circle the drain like we have been. But perhaps another Obama term is necessary so that more people wake up and realize what is really going on. Hopefully during that time the people can be more actively involved in the political process and make a bite of difference, like we did with the SOPA protest (although you know the politicians are feverishly working on re-wording SOPA and re-submitting it in a different form to try to get it passed anyway...but at least we bought some time).

The main problem with my theory is this: Someone once said that one branch of the establishment party is stupid and the other is evil (they didn't specify which...and, frankly, it fluctuates over time) so when they get together and do something "bi-partisan" it ends up being stupid and evil.

Well it looks like Mitt will get the nomination. But I don't think it's certain he'll beat Obama, it will be close.

I think he should run a negative campaign, focussing on Obama's domestic failings. Obama has had some foreign policy successes, such as catching Bin Laden, so don't focus on that.

It's not certain at all. However, I do think he has a very good chance unless there is some seismic political shift (which could happen, of course). Obama is in terrible shape politically. He has lost moderates big time and Republican determination to defeat him is unprecedented.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970

Well he certainly be ready for a dirty, negative, bruising street fight...because that's what Obama will be bringing. Not directly from Obama's mouth of course...but by proxy. It will be a street fight for sure and Team Obama should be expected to fight dirty. If the Republican opponent is unprepared for that, he will certainly lose.

Agreed, which is another reason why I think Romney is the one to beat him. He's realistic. He knows that in today's environment, a campaign has to be about defining your opponent as much as it is about your message. Newt seems to believe that he can follow Obama around and make him debate him 7 times for 3 hours each with William F. Buckley's ghost as moderator.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru

Good points trumpt, ascii, and MJ1970.

I think it's also important to keep in mind that Mitt can't win against Obama without a good number of Ron Paul's supporters, most of whom see no difference between Romney and Obama on some very important issues like foreign policy and civil liberties (NDAA anyone?).

Unless Romney can flip-flop enough on some of those important issues to attract the Ron Paul Republicans, Obama is a 2 term president. But I doubt most Ron Paul supporters would be so fickle and gullible.

Totally disagree. Ron Paul supporters won't be much of a factor. The key to the election is moderates, and that is where Romney will shine. He'll also ride the wave of Republican discontent, so he'll have the vast majority of a very enthused base. For pete's sake Jazz, Paul couldn't beak 10% in a GOP only primary in Florida. Are you kidding?

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Totally disagree. Ron Paul supporters won't be much of a factor. The key to the election is moderates, and that is where Romney will shine. He'll also ride the wave of Republican discontent, so he'll have the vast majority of a very enthused base. For pete's sake Jazz, Paul couldn't beak 10% in a GOP only primary in Florida. Are you kidding?

Yes, focus on Florida. Completely disregard IA, NH, and SC and holdup Florida as representative of the entire country. Look at the demographics of Florida. 'Nuff said.

You're so busy cheer-leading for Romney that you are overlooking Ron Paul's focus on the caucus states, which distribute their delegates differently.

And Ron Paul would just as easily ride that wave of Republican discontent and win those moderates - probably more than Mitt would. Because Ron Paul actually differs from Obama on the issues that really matter, unlike Mitt.

Yes, focus on Florida. Completely disregard IA, NH, and SC and holdup Florida as representative of the entire country. Look at the demographics of Florida. 'Nuff said.

Yes, 'nuff said. Florida is a microcosm of the nation. It's far more diverse than IA, NH and SC. What are you on?

Quote:

You're so busy cheer-leading for Romney that you are overlooking Ron Paul's focus on the caucus states, which distribute their delegates differently.

My support of Romney has nothing to do with the fact that those caucuses just don't matter at this point. Paul won't win. He has no chance of winning. His only goal at this point is to gain enough delegates to influence the party platform going forward.

Quote:

And Ron Paul would just as easily ride that wave of Republican discontent and win those moderates - probably more than Mitt would.

Paul has not done well with moderates. He has done well with independents, which are not necessarily the same people.

Quote:

Because Ron Paul actually differs from Obama on the issues that really matter, unlike Mitt.

Not this again. You friggin Paul supporters are something else. Your myopia is astounding. The notion that Mitt Romney is the same as Obama on "the issues that matter" is laughably absurd. Romney does not = Obama just because Paul has more drastic positions on foreign policy, the economy, etc. If you want to debate those positions on the merits, I'm all for it. But this "Give Me Paul or Give Me Death" notion is getting really tiresome.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Not this again. You friggin Paul supporters are something else. Your myopia is astounding. The notion that Mitt Romney is the same as Obama on "the issues that matter" is laughably absurd. Romney does not = Obama just because Paul has more drastic positions on foreign policy, the economy, etc. If you want to debate those positions on the merits, I'm all for it. But this "Give Me Paul or Give Me Death" notion is getting really tiresome.

And whether or not you want to admit it, your guy can't win without us. So you're really shooting yourself in the foot by trying to marginalize us and paint us as crazy for wanting to follow the Constitution.

Can the President wage war without an official declaration of war from the Congress? Romney and Obama say yes.

Can the government detain American citizens indefinitely without due process? Romney and Obama say yes.

Can the government assassinate American citizens without due process? Romney and Obama say yes.

Can the government manipulate interest rates and inflate the money supply? Romney and Obama say yes.

Can the government bail out failing companies at taxpayers' expense? Romney and Obama say yes.

Can the government mandate healthcare? Romney and Obama say yes.

All Ron Paul advocates is a return to the Constitution, and the conservative establishment deems that "drastic".

Ron Paul advocates a "golden rule" approach to foreign policy - which is clearly what our founding fathers advocated - and he gets booed and heckled by conservative Christians.

And whether or not you want to admit it, your guy can't win without us.

I'm not sure that's true.

Quote:

So you're really shooting yourself in the foot by trying to marginalize us and paint us as crazy for wanting to follow the Constitution.

You've painted yourselves that way, not by wanting to follow the Constitution, but by the other nutty things you and Paul do/say.

Quote:

Can the President wage war without an official declaration of war from the Congress? Romney and Obama say yes.

I fail to see why that is a major issue. An authorization of force is the same thing.

Quote:

Can the government assassinate American citizens without due process? Romney and Obama say yes.

Sanctimony runs strong with you. Do you see predator drones taking out soccer moms? Of course not. This is reserved for terrorists and those who take up arms against the nation. Of course they don't get due process.

Quote:

Can the government manipulate interest rates and inflate the money supply? Romney and Obama say yes.

How you honestly think that Paul could stop that is beyond me.

Quote:

Can the government bail out failing companies at taxpayers' expense? Romney and Obama say yes.

Romney is not exactly Mr. Bailout. That one's straight up false.

Quote:

Can the government mandate healthcare? Romney and Obama say yes.

No, they don't. Romney opposes a federal mandate. And yes, states can do that. The feds cannot.

Quote:

All Ron Paul advocates is a return to the Constitution, and the conservative establishment deems that "drastic".

He goes much, much further than that, and you know it. That's the problem.

Quote:

Ron Paul advocates a "golden rule" approach to foreign policy - which is clearly what our founding fathers advocated - and he gets booed and heckled by conservative Christians.

Because his foreign policy is completely insane.

Quote:

Ron Paul supporters are not the crazy ones, here.

Anyone that claims Romney and Obama are the same is, in fact, crazy.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

You've painted yourselves that way, not by wanting to follow the Constitution, but by the other nutty things you and Paul do/say.

Such as?

Quote:

I fail to see why that is a major issue. An authorization of force is the same thing.

"Any government, that can, for a day, enforce its own laws, without appealing to the people, (or to a tribunal fairly representing the people,) for their consent, is, in theory, an absolute government, irresponsible to the people, and can perpetuate its power at pleasure." -- Lysander Spooner

Quote:

Sanctimony runs strong with you. Do you see predator drones taking out soccer moms? Of course not. This is reserved for terrorists and those who take up arms against the nation. Of course they don't get due process.

See the quote above. Every American citizen is Constitutionally guaranteed a trial by jury before the government can carry out punishment.

Quote:

How you honestly think that Paul could stop that is beyond me.

A good place to start would be to call for an audit of the Fed. And Ron Paul has done that very thing. The point is it's a problem, he's talking about it, and nobody else is.

The main problem with my theory is this: Someone once said that one branch of the establishment party is stupid and the other is evil (they didn't specify which...and, frankly, it fluctuates over time) so when they get together and do something "bi-partisan" it ends up being stupid and evil.